Hello,
Eric Galluzzo wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2001 20:17:43 +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
> > So, if you want the letter Q to signify the inverted fermata you write:
> > U: Q = invertedfermata
> > No exclamation marks required.
>
> This is great, and really quite elegant; however, it means that the
> number of symbols permitted in a piece will be quite small. In
> particular, I frequently use a lot of dynamics in my pieces (...)
which takes care of twelve of the available nineteen symbols right
> there. If I have a segno and D.S. in my piece, that's two more
> (fourteen total); if I further need wedges, tenuto (legato) marks,
> fermatas, mordents and trills, that's already up to nineteen, even with
> the most commonly used symbols. (...)
> Another thing to consider is that various people are considering using R
> for repeat bar, Z for whole-bar rest (Z4 for four bars' rest), X for
> whole silent bar, etc. This seems very useful, and it cuts down the
> number of available symbols to sixteen.
to me, abc notation format was created to fit the needs of "european"
traditional music. I use it because other "classical" music notation
programs as Finale fail in supporting multi-tune files with short, eight
to thirty-two bar tunes and especially using abc2ps and a .fmt file give
a nice and easiely done output for my traditional music compilations,
and even the instumental tutor with mixed music and text passages I am
preparing in the moment. I think abc notation format does not need to be
the "better Finale" supporting all the classical notation specials.
On the other hand, why not adding an extra mechanism for those who
deserve it (ask me, they would be better up using "Finale" or something
similar), as long as this does not interfere with the existing abc
format, so for example extending the "Chord" i.e. "_text" mechanism is
no god idea at al since it may interfere with existing abc files in the
web. the same with using the * character since it is used in some abc
interpreting programs.
And I hope these extentions do not blow up the size of and slow down the
speed of the programs which support them.
>
> I really like the U: mechanism, but I don't think that it's enough: I
> think that we need to be able to specify each symbol longhand as well.
> I don't personally care whether we use ! ! or ` ` or * * or what, but I
> think it would really be handy.
>
Simon Wascher - Vienna, Austria
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
